Jump ship or reform the platform...?

My girlfriend and I were discussing this seemingly common threat of dropping "gay rights" from the Democratic party in order to win votes. There's occasionally abortion thrown in with that.

Neither of us believe that dropping these issues is the way to go, but why is it all or nothing? Why does it have to be "we're going to support these and campaign on them!" or "we don't support these at all, ban them!"? Why do we have to pick from only those two options?

What about the third, and in my opinion, best option? Support them, but don't campaign on them.

You know, I would just love it if I saw some Democrat getting hammered by the Republicans about abortion and same-sex marriages, and the Democrat responded by saying, "I support both of those because I don't believe the government has any place legislating whether or not two consenting adults can wed or a woman and her doctor can have a medical procedure done. However, I would like to know why you are trying to distract myself and the American public with talk about these issues that only effect the individuals involved, rather than talking about issues that effect ALL of America? Why are you trying to distract us with talk of abortions, rather than talking about how the tax cuts to the rich have harmed our economy and run us into enormous debt? We cannot properly fund the programs that benefit ALL Americans, and Americans are losing their jobs. Why are you trying to distract us with same-sex marriages instead of talking about the environment? We all breath, eat, and drink, why don't you talk about how you're polluting the air and water? That effects ALL Americans. Why don't you talk about health care? We have millions of adults and children without it, which drives up costs for ALL Americans."

We don't have to "drop" or "abandon" or even "temporarily abandon" any of our principles to "win votes." We just have to reframe the issues on our own terms and stop repeating the Republican arguments.

And frankly, I'm just sick of all these so-called Democrats who are so willing to give up someone else's rights rather than take the time to think of how it could be reframed to be more palatable to the moderates or even conservatives. What keeps the Democrats from sitting down and reframing, rather than abandoning - or worse, wasting their time debating whether or not to abandon - these issues? Is is just laziness? Naivete? Hopelessness? A combination? Let's change that, let's sit down and rethink our core concerns and the rights of citizens and stop talking about "dumping" them.

Good thinking. Some of my best thoughts come in the early morning hours.

I don't know whether it is through sheer incompetence or the fact that many Democrats have become too influenced by big business money that has prevented them from trying to address the issue. The corporate news media has also done a crapload to handicap Democrats as well.

Let's not get into the larger issue of electoral reform and the lack of choice inherent in a two-party duopoly. That's for another discussion.

. . . by backtracking on equality for women and gays, the Dems lose far more support than they'd gain.

Here's one guy who is tired of Kerry's constant flip-flopping on those issues and who is considering not voting for the Democrats in the next election if they don't get their acts together. I am tired of having my vote taken for granted and being thrown away like yesterday's bagel.

To get my vote in 2006, Democrats will have to EARN it.

I try to tell them, "So you're saying that GLBT people and in many cases their families, too, aren't worth supporting? You really think you'll get that many more votes?" I doubt it. I've even read posts saying to go so far as supporting the ban on gay marriage. I can tell you that neither I nor my family, nor any of my friends, would vote for a Democrat who actually supported the ban. ::disgusted sigh::

I wish people would stop trying to take away rights from other people. It's almost a given that anyone saying to drop gay rights is straight, and anyone saying to drop women's rights is male. Go figure.

to demand to frame the debate.

When a NeoCon robot asks if you support killing babies
respond by saying the issue is privacy. We support everyone's constitutional right to be private and secure in their person, papers and home. That right includes making their own personal medical decisions.

When they ask if you support GAY marriage and do you know that leads to the death of marriage.
respond by saying the issue is privacy. We support everyones constitutional right to be private and secure in their person, papers and home. That right includes making their own personal private sexual decisions. Remind them that ALL men are created equal. It says so in the constitution look it up.

You can support the positions without having to support Abortion or Gays. By supporting ALL People and equal rights for all WE WIN BOTH DEBATES.

used the term "flip-flop" LOL :)

:kick:

great post

The trouble is this is a nuanced reply. Nuanced replies don't make the news.
Off the topic of specific issues, isn't that the most effective message we can get out. If the Democrats "response" was consistent and persistant. Every time a Republicna tries to pull the "marriage card" or the "morality card, or the "Shiavo card", if they all consistantly say

"These are purposeful Distractions to keep America's attention away from their true agenda".

Say that over and over in the media. Make the populace wonder if there is another agenda. Of course there is, so when they seek the answer they are liable to find it.

I don't really care how they say it so much as long as they say something about how these are just distractions and not what we ought to be spending our time on. I do think they should state their position on it in a way that is palatable to moderates, with a little reframing it is possible. I don't understand though, why they feel the need to bumble through half-assed-sounding positions that offend one group and don't pull in votes from any other. Reframe it, point out the distraction technique, move on.

Didn't mean to sound like I was critisizing your "frame". I agree, they just are not being effective. We are on the same "page". :)

But I also honestly don't know any Dem who is in favor of changing our core positions on these issues.

I DO know some are saying we need to change the way we **talk** about these issues. Dean, just as one example, is one. I fear some have misunderstood that to mean a change in core values.

Your suggestion as to how a candidate might answer a question about these issues is spot on. That's exactly what I'd like to hear them do. To the best of my knowledge (and I admit to not having followed this very closely, so I may be wrong) is Wesley Clark. But even he's been muddled in his message. Of course, he was the only one to make the cover of The Advocate.

And I've seen many, many, many posts on DU saying to drop the "gay issue" or drop the "abortion issue." I've even seen posters going so far as to say Democrats should support the ban on same-sex marriages. That's actually what inspired my first post.

I appreciate the Democrats who say we need to **talk** differently about these issues, we really do. But unfortunately, I have seen Democrats talking about dropping these issues or I wouldn't have made this post.

With the two options always presented, "support it and campaign on it" or "drop support of it completely to appease the Right," we lose. If we drop support of gay-rights, then GLBT people lose their rights and the Democrats lose part of their base. If we drop the abortion issue, women lose their rights and the Democrats lose part of their base. If we campaign on them, we drive off moderates and conservatives who are upset with their party (assuming we aren't smart enough to reframe the issues and stop using the Republican talking points.) I don't think it has to be one or the other, point out these distractions for what they are and move on.

I'm just sick of my rights getting put on the chopping block because people either can't or won't take the time to think of how to talk about it so that it doesn't drive people off.

And b'lieve me ... if a candidate changes his core values on this, he's lost me.

Not the way he talks about it .... but the core values.

but it DOES happen that Dems are told to back out of support for these controversial social issues in the name of getting more votes. Sometimes they even listen, which is really what pisses me off. :mad:

people voted for Bush in 2004 is because they felt he stood for something. He was stubborn and unapologetic about his stances, and people respected that. I think that is what we need to do. We need to stop apologizing for not being right-wing wackos!! If politicians are genuinely moderate, they should just be moderate! If they are progressive, they should just be progressive!

Howard Dean has told a story of a conversation he had with an anti-abortion, anti-church-state separation woman who was a supporter of his. He asked her why she still supported him, even though he supported the separation of church and state and is pro-choice. She told him she supported him because he "had conviction".

This is the same talking points that all us old time queers here on DU have raised every single time an election happens, and the loss for Dem's is blamed on us. Unfortunately though those haters just don't listen.

Of course they are losing, because they are the ones who have been dropping so called wedge issues rather than reframing the debate. If they shit on their voter base, then they gotta realize the damage it will cause them in the long run.